Season 3, Episode 1: A Spontaneous Moment
Season 3 of ReGenesis starts with a bang - literally. A top-secret lab in Utah explodes and six scientists are killed from what appears to have been spontaneous combustion! David and Bob from NorBAC are sent to investigate and find a cold room full of cyanobacteria engineered to contain "nano-dots." It seems that the scientists were among many actively doing research on alternative energy sources. Nice idea, but…
The hunt for alternative energy sources – Proceed with caution.
Forgive the pun, but global warming is a hot topic right now! Is it really An Inconvenient Truth, as the 2007 Academy Award®-winning documentary suggests?
The evidence is piling up that climate change is indeed a reality, but why is it “inconvenient”? Well, because it seems that we’re likely responsible for it, by creating and releasing greenhouse gases into the environment through the burning of fossil fuels – oil, gas, and coal – to power our cars and heat our homes.
So scientists around the world are hard at work developing cleaner, sustainable energy sources such as biodiesel, energy efficient solar cells, wind generators, and biomass reactors. But in seeking alternatives, we must also seek to ensure that those new sources are not themselves the cause of further problems. In other words, it is important to consider the different, but potentially significant, impact of the development and use of new energy sources on the environment and on people.
Take hydroelectricity. Relative to oil and gas, it is a much cleaner source of energy. Yet, it is not without its own harmful impacts on the environment. Essential habitats, for example, may need to be destroyed to make way for the construction of new hydroelectric dams.
Okay, what about nuclear power? It is the world’s third largest source of electricity, and unlike the burning of oil and gas, it does not release greenhouse gases into the environment. Unfortunately, it creates thousands of tonnes of radioactive waste annually in the form of spent fuel from nuclear reactors.
Here’s another “inconvenient truth”: Neither we nor our environment will benefit by replacing one problem with another.
If only the Utah scientists in this episode had considered that when they embarked on their secret research program to engineer bacteria for use in microbial fuel cells …
Unintended consequences
Science has the power to make our world a better place. However, as global warming demonstrates, it also has the power to create some serious problems.
We’re not talking about “mad scientists” bent on intentionally using science for malicious purposes. Rather, the concern rests with the potential for science to make possible new and wonderful things, which may have unfortunate unintended consequences, some of which are foreseeable and others that are not.
As you will see in the coming weeks, this is a recurring theme in ReGenesis, and appropriately so. After all, this show aims to present science in a realistic manner, and a certain amount of risk is an integral part of exploring the unknown. It comes with the territory, so to speak.
So what can be done to minimize or mitigate these risks? There are many processes already in place – and widely accepted as fundamental to how most scientific research should be done – to help ensure research is conducted as safely as possible. These include transparency and peer-review of research proposals and publications, and using established guidelines and safety protocols for handling dangerous materials and organisms.
In this episode, however, these mechanisms failed because the researchers were operating in secret, outside the scientific community, and cutting corners in their haste to make a quick discovery. In other words, one might say that they were doing bad science.
But even “good science” can be risky. This is why researchers and others involved in research, including those who fund it and those who determine policies governing its conduct, must be mindful of the potential impact of the new technologies being developed. It’s important to give due consideration to not only the amazing things that could be born of the research – new energy sources, medicines, food, and more – but also to the potential unintended, foreseeable consequences.
Thankfully, this is nothing new. Scientists have long been considering the risks associated with their research.
In the mid-1970’s, for example, at the dawn of recombinant DNA technology – when scientists first gained the power to manipulate and engineer genes – the scientific community recognized that with this new power came some potential risks. Consider the harmful effects that could result from unintentional release of genetically modified bacteria into the environment – sounds a bit like this episode, doesn’t it?!
Rather than forge ahead without regard for the risks, they banded together and declared a temporary moratorium on the research; that is, they agreed to stop doing it for a short time while they ensured that it could be done safely. Science has since moved safely into the genetic revolution and onward into our current genomics era.
Although it’s hard to say whether the moratorium ultimately played a significant part in that progression, we can say that it was a reassuring demonstration – to the public and scientists alike – that scientists are willing and able to put the brakes on from time to time, if only to make sure they’re heading down a safe road.
Similarly, with all types of cutting-edge research, proactively considering potential risks – thinking about and addressing them while research is in the planning stages, rather than underway – can help lessen the potential for negative outcomes, or even prevent them altogether.
Stay tuned…it’s going to be a wild ride this season!
More food for thought
Q: Are scientists well equipped to consider all of the ways in which their research will impact society? Who might they work with to fill in any gaps?
Q: What role should funding agencies and governments play in ensuring these important considerations are made?
Q: Can we mitigate research-related risks that are not readily foreseeable? How?
Q: It was suggested above that having peer-review and observing safety guidelines are part of doing “good science.” What do you think? What are the necessary elements of “good science”?
Want to read and learn more?
For more information on using living organisms in the development of cleaner and more effective products, including energy sources, visit:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/biotech/environ/index_e.html
To learn more about climate change and what you can do, try these sites:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/
http://www.iisd.org/climate/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://www.ipcc.ch/
